Appalanaidu Counter
Appalanaidu Counter
Vs.
02. The Respondent submits that the petitioners claim of being falsely implicated
in the above said case is not true, as the six persons were found collectively
possessing the said narcotic drug. Further their voluntary statements also
solidify the respondents claim.
03. The Respondents fu1ther submits that the petitioners claim of having nothing
to do with the case is untrue. The six persons are all residents of the state of
Andhra Pradesh, far away from Chennai, hence their presence at the spot of
seizure with the possession of the contraband, solidify their involvement in the
illicit trafficking of Narcotic drug and Criminal Conspiracy. Hence the
petitioners shall not be enlarged on bail.
04. The Respondent further submits that during the course of investigation, the
call details and the tower location of four of the accused person further
solidify the respondents claim. The said accused were found to be frequently
contacting each other just before the day of Seizure, as shown in their call
details;
Call Details of Appala Naidu (6300456135) and Muvvah1 Ramu (7989320637)
Caller lkcei\1er Dute Time Duration Nature
07. The Respondent further submits that the six accused were
found collectively
possessing the Narcotic drug, hence their voluntary statement
and further their
arrest was necessary as the offence committed was of comm
ercial quantity
and serious in nature. Further during the investigation, it was
found that the
six person were all involved in this criminal conspiracy, hence
they shall not
be granted bail.
09. The Respo ndent further submits that the petitioners are
all residents of ASR
distric t and Anakapalle district in Andhra Pradesh, which is
considered to be
Sensi tive Area due to Naxalite movements. Due to this
reason the house
search of the six accused could not be conducted. The accus
ed shall not be
granted bail, as the accused might flee from the clutches of justice and their
residenc es are also tough to reach due to sensitivity of the areas.
10. The responde nt submits that the petioners claim of not causing prejudic e are
untrue. If the accused are provided with bail, there might be a possibility of
them to abscond , which could disrupt the speedy trial of this case. Hence the
grounds provided by the accused of granting the bail does not comply.
12. The Respondent further submits that the offence committ ed by the petitione r
is a cognizable offence, involving 5.777 Kg Hashish Oil, more than five times
of the commercial quantity. The petitioner is not innocent, the documen t and
property seized in the case clearly proves that the petitione r has committ ed the
offence knowingly which was also admitted by the petitione r in his voluntar y
statement. The petitioner, in his voluntary statemen t admitted that he is very
well known to the fact and he done it for need of money. Hence the grounds
raised by the petitioner about depriving their fundamental right are not
sustainab le and are liable to be rejected.
On the strength of the grounds stated above, it is therefore prayed that this Hon 'ble
Court may be pleased to dismiss the bail petition filled by the petitione r and thus
render justice.
() VIVEK DUBEY
Vs.